HN had an article about how web3 is just an expensive p2p [1]. If that is the case then its core promise - of an internet where content is owned by its creators, can't be held hostage by tech oligarchs and can be moved anywhere its creator wants, is impossible to fulfill from the start. The data will have to be created by apps that are going to be coded by tech companies. What is from stoping them from adding data to the blockchain in a proprietary format? Won't that defeat the core promise? But then I can't reconcile it with the ebullient shower of praise by the likes of A16Z[2]. What am I missing in trying to understand web3?<p>[1] https://netfuture.ch/2022/05/web3-is-just-expensive-p2p/
[2] https://a16z.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/state-of-crypto-2022_a16z-crypto.pdf?utm_source=tldrnewsletter
All blockchain is a ponzi scheme. Reasons to give your money to the blockchain: currency of the future (Bitcoin) -> trustless computing (Ethereum Classic) -> trustless computing with that one bug fix (Ethereum) -> store of value (Bitcoin, Tether, etc...) -> digital assets that you really own and we ignore copyright and existing laws that might cover this subject (NFT's) -> vague web3 promises.<p>Next year it will be something else, or maybe they will circle back to the beginning (Future of currency! Fundamentals!), but the only reason anyone really buys in is because they believe they will make money.<p>A16Z has no problem running a ponzi scheme. If blockchain were actually useful, why wouldn't they just pour all that money into Bitcoin?
Web3 is a loosely defined trend and every person has different expectations for the changes that web3 should bring. Here's what I personally think web3 can do to change the internet for the better:<p>- Increase proportion of consumer spending that goes to creators (Apple, YouTube, Spotify, etc have egregious take rates from 20-50%)<p>- Create new business models where incentives are aligned. Take a look on HN at the weekly threads about poor Google search results. Subscriptions and micropayments are a no-go for services like Google search. It's time for a new business model for these services and web3 provides the framework to experiment with radically different business models.<p>- Permissionless (and decentralized) finance: if you live in the US/Canada/UK/France/Germany/etc then this might not be much use to you. There are dozens of countries that can benefit from permissionless access to banking.
The promise of all the overblown claims made for it?<p>I don't think anything could fulfil that!<p>I'm sure there are some useful applications for blockchain tech, but it's not a fundamental base for a new generation of the internet. However the desire to get out of the highly centralised corporate controlled version of the internet is a good one.<p>Personally I do hope the next generation is based on decentralised/federated tech. Like the "fediverse" systems such as mastodon. I think these genuinely do fulfil some of the promised claims of the web3 bandwagon, but actually have nothing to do with blockchain.<p>However I also doubt if the fediverse will be the future of the internet either, but it's certainly the side of the internet that I'm enjoying right now and shows what a social internet away from the shackles of the big tech companies could be!
web3 is completely overhyped and a16z is part of that hype and pouring funds into it.<p>the promise of web3 boosters , "everything will be on-chain" is impossible to realize. maybe best to see decentralization as a spectrum or something that lies on multiple axes.<p>something like an NFT on Eth with IPFS is platform-agnostic and transferable only by whomever has the private key. that owner can also self host the file if they want. but there still will be centralized platforms, pinata hosting, AWS, etc build on top of this ecosystem to make it easier and to attempt to capture value where possible (openSea charges 2.5% on each trade).
In my view, the goal of the current version of Web3 (previously, it was Semantic Web) is that applications can be decentralized. Is it possible that software services can be provided that are not controlled by any central authority?<p>Bitcoin, Ethereum, and ICOs show the possibility of decentralized applications. From what I can tell (and how most people think), we are very far away from that promise with the existing offerings.<p>The current Web3 offerings are primarily a speculative play instead of an innovation play. It started as an innovation play and Ethereum was exciting because it suggested a proper focus.<p>I personally believe that it is possible to get there but we need to greatly change the current decentralized offerings. P2P technology needs to focus on innovation, value add, and service offerings to be worthy of being more than a P2P database used for speculative investment and money transfers.
> of an internet where content is owned by its creators, can't be held hostage by tech oligarchs and can be moved anywhere its creator wants<p>IPFS<p>> The data will have to be created by apps that are going to be coded by tech companies.<p>Nobody is stopping you from building apps<p>> What is from stoping them from adding data to the blockchain in a proprietary format?<p>Nothing. Plenty of companies use proprietary formats. You can choose to use the company's product or not. On the web3 ecosystem there is code available, at least for bigger and legit projects<p>Also what are the "core promises". Can you be more specific on that?
I have nothing but dislike for anything web3 but you've constructed this question just to milk a negative answer out of people.<p>```<p>If (vaguely defined subjective thing)<p>Then web 3[whatever that even is and whatever it's promises even are] are incapable of being fulfilled.<p>```<p>I don't think this particularly has any meaning. Might as well just say "I dislike web3"<p>Me too. I'm on your team.